.anorexia. by ~JadexFace on deviantART
This is a very nice piece by JadexFace. I think it beautifully illustrates a lot of what's wrong with society these days. It really bothers me when people act as if sexism is no longer a problem and that feminism is dead. I really hope that people realize that women everywhere are still being held down every day; anorexia is one of the many problems women, girls, and all people will have to endure until society is ready and willing to look its inherent sexism right in eye.
There might not be any more posts for a while. However, I am planning a book review of Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World", "LGBT Rights - Part 2", and more. Stay tuned. And if I don't post for a few days -- have a great New Year!
P.S. Barack Obama will be the President of the United States of America in 22 days.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
"Barack", Paper, Scissors
Today I spent a good amount of time moving my blog to deviantART and to LiveJournal. Sorry, but there's no new article today. To keep yourself busy, why not play this fun little game? The man behind this madness must have been very smart, creative, and bored. Have a nice Boxing Day!
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Happy Holiday 2008! Season's Greetings to All!
This is your Holiday gift. Have a great day off!
Stephen Colbert is hilarious. I don't even celebrate the traditional or new holiday of "Christmas", but I found this quite funny. Enjoy it!
Stephen Colbert is hilarious. I don't even celebrate the traditional or new holiday of "Christmas", but I found this quite funny. Enjoy it!
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Response: Ben Sapiro, CNS News, Call Gay Communities "Intolerant" In An Appearently Brain-Dead Trance
When CNS News isn't berating the Unions of America, this far-Right propaganda outlet can often be found providing misinformation about gay rights and abortion. However, the "Conservative" columnist, hypocrite Ben Shapiro, is too much. I have called hypocrisy on Mr. Shapiro, because he doesn't even follow his Conservative roots, which exemplify a smaller federal Government. However, this man has had the nerve to propose laws against pornography and limiting speech in anti-War protests. Regardless, Ben Shapiro spits upon the First Amendment, yet again, with his latest article, which needs response. As per usual, the author's text will be bolded and my response will be regular.
"Gay Community Is Intolerant, Too" by Ben Shapiro
Did he just admit that the Fundamentalist Conservatives are intolerant? Did he just agree with the Liberal LGBT activists without even intending to?
Pope Benedict made a “shocking” statement Monday. He said the Roman Catholic Church opposes homosexual acts and wishes to help those who engage in such acts. The Church, he said, “should … protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed.”
The previous week, the Rev. Rick Warren made a similarly “shocking” statement. In opposing gay marriage, Warren said, “I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”
The first two paragraphs are relatively fine, Shapiro is simply repeating news of the last two weeks. Aside from the unnecessary quotation marks around the word shocking, my only real criticism stems from Pastor Warren's comments. Marriage has been redefined many times in the past 5,000 years. Marriage originated as a form of trade between families. Eventually, the joining of two lovers became religious, but even since marriage has been redefined. It was redefined 40 years ago to provide more equality to Black people. If Rick Warren is against incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, then why doesn't he protest that instead of normal couples who happen to be LGBT?
The gay community attacked both the pope and Warren with gusto. The Rev. Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, labeled the pope’s words, “totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form.” Meanwhile, Brad Luna, director of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, jabbed, “Rick Warren is somebody who has opposed our equality.”
I'm not sure if "attacked" is good diction, because no one has physically "attacked" neither Rick Warren nor the Pope.
Here’s my question: What’s the big deal? It isn’t as though the pope and Rick Warren are articulating anything new -- they’re articulating the same traditional Judeo-Christian perspective that has been a moral standard for thousands of years. So why the hubbub? Warren is not stating that he wants to criminalize homosexuality. And the pope is merely suggesting that sexuality may be flexible, and that sexual behavior can be changed. Where’s the big threat to the gay community?
First off, the threat is that people actually believe the baseless claims that both the Pope and Rick Warren spew. Neither has used actual facts, statistics, or data in their hate speech, only analogies that hardly fit. Shapiro, allow me to ask you a question. How does having the Virgin Marry on the cover of Playboy hurt Christianity? How is Harry Potter a threat to Christianity? Moreover, how are a group of gays and lesbians, most of whom have no interest in being married by a bunch of homophobes, going to threaten the church?
The gay community constantly asks: If we want to marry, how does it hurt you? Here’s a similar question: If religious people don’t approve of homosexual behavior, how does it hurt you? We’re not advocating violence against gays and lesbians -- far from it. We’re not going to invade your bedrooms and toss your same-sex partners in prison. We’re not advocating that you be fired from your job. We’re not saying that you’re rotten human beings. We’re just saying we don’t approve of your behavior. It’s that simple. So how does it hurt you?
It does hurt the LGBT community. I will not divulge into every example of how it can hurt people, but I'll provide the best example: the Hate-Crimes Bill. Many Conservative-Fundamentalists are against legislation adding LGBT to the list of hate crimes. Their reasoning? Some half-brained, untrue, idea that their freedom or religion and speech will be persecuted if such a measure is passed. The only problem with that logic? It's not true. Who is being hurt by not passing this measure? The thousands of LGBT people who are harrassed for who they are, just because members of the intolerant-Right wrongly assumes that their religion - which IS protected under the Hate Crimes bill - may be treat upon.
The fact is, of course, that a religious standard of marriage does hurt gay people. The gay community wishes to hijack marriage and use it as a shield to legitimize traditionally immoral behavior. By opposing gay marriage, traditionally moral folks prevent the gay community from having its way.
Traditionally - I'm going on an assumption here that Mr. Shapiro is referring to a pre-1960's "traditional" - homosexuality is immoral. While at first, "traditional" America may sound fine, there are many problems. Women in the past were treated awfully, there was little tolerance for non-Whites in our country, and religious intolerance was still quite rampant. Who exactly is "hijack[ing] marriage"? Does anyone actually believe that Anderson Cooper, Ellen Degeneres, Rachel Maddow, Amanda Palmer, Clay Aiken, and Angelina Jolie sit around scheming up plans to "legitimize traditionally immoral behavior"? All major non-partisan studies have shown that homosexuality is neither a choice nor is alterable.
But by the same exact standard, the gay community’s insistence that homosexuality be respected -- their insistence that figures from Pope Benedict to Rick Warren treat homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable way of life -- hurts religious people. By opposing religious people’s freedom to articulate their view on homosexuality, they encroach on religious freedom.
Someone’s standard has to win. If the pope and Warren have their way, traditional morality will remain the standard and the gay community will feel left out. If the gay community has its way, traditional morality will be discarded and the religious community will feel left out.
Whose standard should win?
The moral answer might be complex -- as a religious person, I favor the traditional marriage movement -- but the systemic answer is simple: Let the people decide. We live in a republic, and that means that the American people must be given the freedom to determine which societal standards they want implemented.
Advocates for traditional morality have won virtually every electoral battle over gay marriage. The gay community has won its victories in the courtroom, calling on elitist judges to twist the words of state constitutions. It’s illegitimate, and it cuts against the most basic American value: the right of the people to decide how to regulate their communities.
The gay community has every right to oppose the pope and Warren. And the pope and Warren have every right to blast the gay community. That’s freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But let’s stop pretending that the pope and Warren are intolerant while the gay community is not. There’s intolerance on both sides. But someone has to win. The people should decide who wins.
Truthfully, I grouped the last few sections together because, simply, Benny-boy misses out on a valuable piece of information: we DON'T live in a total "republic", we elect people to make decisions for us. So, the commentary on the so-called "elitist judges" (Care to elaborate how exactly they're elitist, Mr. Shapiro?), how this entire process is completely "illegitimate", and how it's "the right of the people to decide how to regulate their communities", isn't exactly true. First off, the word "communities" can throw many people off. How many of us actually consider their ENTIRE state to be "their community"? Second, it's not our right: we don't live in that type of country. Contrary to popular belief, we do not usually vote on such hot-button issues. We ELECT people to vote for us. Haven't you ever taken Eighth Grade U.S. History, Mr. Shapiro?
While I applaud Ben "Hypocrite" Shapiro for acknowledging how intolerant the anti-gay movement (and inherently himself) is, he has yet to point out intolerance on the LGBT Communities' end. Disagreeing with a single religious point does not make anyone a bigot. I would enjoy watching people attempt to justify Exodus 21:7, Ephesians 5:22-24, and Leviticus 25:44, then turn right around and tell me that they believe that homosexuality is wrong.
"Gay Community Is Intolerant, Too" by Ben Shapiro
Did he just admit that the Fundamentalist Conservatives are intolerant? Did he just agree with the Liberal LGBT activists without even intending to?
Pope Benedict made a “shocking” statement Monday. He said the Roman Catholic Church opposes homosexual acts and wishes to help those who engage in such acts. The Church, he said, “should … protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed.”
The previous week, the Rev. Rick Warren made a similarly “shocking” statement. In opposing gay marriage, Warren said, “I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”
The first two paragraphs are relatively fine, Shapiro is simply repeating news of the last two weeks. Aside from the unnecessary quotation marks around the word shocking, my only real criticism stems from Pastor Warren's comments. Marriage has been redefined many times in the past 5,000 years. Marriage originated as a form of trade between families. Eventually, the joining of two lovers became religious, but even since marriage has been redefined. It was redefined 40 years ago to provide more equality to Black people. If Rick Warren is against incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, then why doesn't he protest that instead of normal couples who happen to be LGBT?
The gay community attacked both the pope and Warren with gusto. The Rev. Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, labeled the pope’s words, “totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form.” Meanwhile, Brad Luna, director of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, jabbed, “Rick Warren is somebody who has opposed our equality.”
I'm not sure if "attacked" is good diction, because no one has physically "attacked" neither Rick Warren nor the Pope.
Here’s my question: What’s the big deal? It isn’t as though the pope and Rick Warren are articulating anything new -- they’re articulating the same traditional Judeo-Christian perspective that has been a moral standard for thousands of years. So why the hubbub? Warren is not stating that he wants to criminalize homosexuality. And the pope is merely suggesting that sexuality may be flexible, and that sexual behavior can be changed. Where’s the big threat to the gay community?
First off, the threat is that people actually believe the baseless claims that both the Pope and Rick Warren spew. Neither has used actual facts, statistics, or data in their hate speech, only analogies that hardly fit. Shapiro, allow me to ask you a question. How does having the Virgin Marry on the cover of Playboy hurt Christianity? How is Harry Potter a threat to Christianity? Moreover, how are a group of gays and lesbians, most of whom have no interest in being married by a bunch of homophobes, going to threaten the church?
The gay community constantly asks: If we want to marry, how does it hurt you? Here’s a similar question: If religious people don’t approve of homosexual behavior, how does it hurt you? We’re not advocating violence against gays and lesbians -- far from it. We’re not going to invade your bedrooms and toss your same-sex partners in prison. We’re not advocating that you be fired from your job. We’re not saying that you’re rotten human beings. We’re just saying we don’t approve of your behavior. It’s that simple. So how does it hurt you?
It does hurt the LGBT community. I will not divulge into every example of how it can hurt people, but I'll provide the best example: the Hate-Crimes Bill. Many Conservative-Fundamentalists are against legislation adding LGBT to the list of hate crimes. Their reasoning? Some half-brained, untrue, idea that their freedom or religion and speech will be persecuted if such a measure is passed. The only problem with that logic? It's not true. Who is being hurt by not passing this measure? The thousands of LGBT people who are harrassed for who they are, just because members of the intolerant-Right wrongly assumes that their religion - which IS protected under the Hate Crimes bill - may be treat upon.
The fact is, of course, that a religious standard of marriage does hurt gay people. The gay community wishes to hijack marriage and use it as a shield to legitimize traditionally immoral behavior. By opposing gay marriage, traditionally moral folks prevent the gay community from having its way.
Traditionally - I'm going on an assumption here that Mr. Shapiro is referring to a pre-1960's "traditional" - homosexuality is immoral. While at first, "traditional" America may sound fine, there are many problems. Women in the past were treated awfully, there was little tolerance for non-Whites in our country, and religious intolerance was still quite rampant. Who exactly is "hijack[ing] marriage"? Does anyone actually believe that Anderson Cooper, Ellen Degeneres, Rachel Maddow, Amanda Palmer, Clay Aiken, and Angelina Jolie sit around scheming up plans to "legitimize traditionally immoral behavior"? All major non-partisan studies have shown that homosexuality is neither a choice nor is alterable.
But by the same exact standard, the gay community’s insistence that homosexuality be respected -- their insistence that figures from Pope Benedict to Rick Warren treat homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable way of life -- hurts religious people. By opposing religious people’s freedom to articulate their view on homosexuality, they encroach on religious freedom.
Someone’s standard has to win. If the pope and Warren have their way, traditional morality will remain the standard and the gay community will feel left out. If the gay community has its way, traditional morality will be discarded and the religious community will feel left out.
Whose standard should win?
The moral answer might be complex -- as a religious person, I favor the traditional marriage movement -- but the systemic answer is simple: Let the people decide. We live in a republic, and that means that the American people must be given the freedom to determine which societal standards they want implemented.
Advocates for traditional morality have won virtually every electoral battle over gay marriage. The gay community has won its victories in the courtroom, calling on elitist judges to twist the words of state constitutions. It’s illegitimate, and it cuts against the most basic American value: the right of the people to decide how to regulate their communities.
The gay community has every right to oppose the pope and Warren. And the pope and Warren have every right to blast the gay community. That’s freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But let’s stop pretending that the pope and Warren are intolerant while the gay community is not. There’s intolerance on both sides. But someone has to win. The people should decide who wins.
Truthfully, I grouped the last few sections together because, simply, Benny-boy misses out on a valuable piece of information: we DON'T live in a total "republic", we elect people to make decisions for us. So, the commentary on the so-called "elitist judges" (Care to elaborate how exactly they're elitist, Mr. Shapiro?), how this entire process is completely "illegitimate", and how it's "the right of the people to decide how to regulate their communities", isn't exactly true. First off, the word "communities" can throw many people off. How many of us actually consider their ENTIRE state to be "their community"? Second, it's not our right: we don't live in that type of country. Contrary to popular belief, we do not usually vote on such hot-button issues. We ELECT people to vote for us. Haven't you ever taken Eighth Grade U.S. History, Mr. Shapiro?
While I applaud Ben "Hypocrite" Shapiro for acknowledging how intolerant the anti-gay movement (and inherently himself) is, he has yet to point out intolerance on the LGBT Communities' end. Disagreeing with a single religious point does not make anyone a bigot. I would enjoy watching people attempt to justify Exodus 21:7, Ephesians 5:22-24, and Leviticus 25:44, then turn right around and tell me that they believe that homosexuality is wrong.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Be On The Lookout: Michelle Malkin
As a preface: this is a new series of posts I hope to begin. Yes, I know, the "LGBT Rights" series has been a bit neglected, but I will continue that eventually. This series is known as, "Be On The Lookout", a new collection of infamous people who may one day gain popularity and fame: but not if I have anything to say about it. It may seem ironic that I am seemingly giving these people more publicity, but it is my hope that the commentary I provide will convince you (or others) reason enough to not to support these dubious individuals. These segments will not cover the Bill O'Reilly's and the Ann Coulters; they have already gained enough critisism. These segments will cover the scum of the Earth who haven't made it to that level yet - and we hope never do.
To start things off, my first "Be On The Lookout" winner? Michelle Maglalang Malkin.
The Editor & Publisher contributor Bronwyn Lance Chester, once commented on Malkin saying that, "[She] habitually mistakes shrill for thought-provoking and substitutes screaming for discussion. She's an Asian Ann Coulter. [...] She’s the worst of what's wrong with punditry today. She adds absolutely nothing to genuine political discourse."
To this, Malkin replied, "I'm not Asian, I'm American, for goodness' sake. I would take the comparison to Ann Coulter as somewhat of a compliment. I have a lot of respect for Ann Coulter[.]"
First off, Michelle, you are Asian. Barack Obama is half-African, Geraldo Rivera is hispanic, and Keith Olbermann is white; they are also all Americans. I do not mean to sound disrespectful or rude, but, if your are a Fillipina-American, then you are also an Asian-American. Ethnicity and race are completely different from citizenship. You don't have to speak another language, you don't have to hang out with people of your ethnic background, but don't try to say that you're not Asian.
Second, conservative or not, you take being compared to Ann Coulter as "a compliment"? Really? Ann Coulter who uses such words as "faggot" and "ragheads" to describe people? The same Ann Coulter who has said repeatidly that the country would be a better place if women did not vote? Ann Coulter, who called Christians, "perfected Jews"? The very same Ann Coulter who made comments directed at widdows of 9/11, by the nature of, "[now] that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."? You take that as a compliment? The answer? Yes.
Michelle Malkin has unfortunately managed to gain some fame from appearing on MSNBC, C-SPAN, and, of course, Fox "News". In fact, this woman has co-hosted the "O'Reilly Factor" on multiple occaisions. This was, until, Geraldo Revera, made comments about Malkin. He said, "Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life. She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people. It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in NY. I’d spit on her if I saw her." Geraldo Rivera is not a liberal. He works for Fox "News". He has made huge critisms of The New York Times. Aside from putting Malkin's "Liberals hate conservative minorities"-bullshit to shame, this quote proves one thing: if a "radical" conservative like Geraldo Rivera despises Malkin, then she must be truly awful.
A quick Google search pulled up two stories which should be brought to light. Both of these stories are not deep-dark secrets from Malkin's past. They are not lies. In fact, she is quite proud of both of these. The fact that someone, being completely serious, could actually think up such vile concepts and actually report them, sickens me.
In 2004, Michelle Malkin released her second book, "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror". In the book, Malkin attempts to justify the racism that controlled our country during the internment of Japanese-Americans. She then draws comparisons to our current war on terror, enticing prejudice against Muslims and Arabs. I have no problem with intelligently voicing an opinion that may not be my own as long as it is intelligently written. However, this book banks off of an ignorance of different cultures and a fear of anything associated with the Middle East. It seems to me, that Malkin has picked the easiest solution to the issue or terrorism, but not the most intelligent or fair answer.
The second story, comes from an early 2008 controversy involving Rachel Ray and Dunkin Donuts. In a new ad campaign, the Food Network's Rachel Ray was seen in a black and white scarf, to which Malkin expressed great outrage. Michelle notes that, Rachel Ray is "clueless[ly] sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh in a recent DD ad campaign. I’m hoping her hate couture choice was spurred more by ignorance than ideology." Does this woman dare speak on others' ignornace? The scarf worn by Rachel Ray, the same style as worn by John McCain's daughter, is extremely popular among United States and British troops as well as citizens of the Middle East, regardless of political or religious views. In fact, the stylehas become so famous that popular clothing brands, such as Hollister and Abercrombie & Fitch, have begun production of the scarf. Malkin, are you so much of a fear monger that proud Americans have to abandon their fasion accessories - even ones made by all American companies such as Abercrombie & Fitch!?
I advise everyone to Be On The Lookout for Michelle Malkin, for being a self hating Asian-American, fear mongering against Muslims and Arabs, and being an complete attention whore.
To start things off, my first "Be On The Lookout" winner? Michelle Maglalang Malkin.
The Editor & Publisher contributor Bronwyn Lance Chester, once commented on Malkin saying that, "[She] habitually mistakes shrill for thought-provoking and substitutes screaming for discussion. She's an Asian Ann Coulter. [...] She’s the worst of what's wrong with punditry today. She adds absolutely nothing to genuine political discourse."
To this, Malkin replied, "I'm not Asian, I'm American, for goodness' sake. I would take the comparison to Ann Coulter as somewhat of a compliment. I have a lot of respect for Ann Coulter[.]"
First off, Michelle, you are Asian. Barack Obama is half-African, Geraldo Rivera is hispanic, and Keith Olbermann is white; they are also all Americans. I do not mean to sound disrespectful or rude, but, if your are a Fillipina-American, then you are also an Asian-American. Ethnicity and race are completely different from citizenship. You don't have to speak another language, you don't have to hang out with people of your ethnic background, but don't try to say that you're not Asian.
Second, conservative or not, you take being compared to Ann Coulter as "a compliment"? Really? Ann Coulter who uses such words as "faggot" and "ragheads" to describe people? The same Ann Coulter who has said repeatidly that the country would be a better place if women did not vote? Ann Coulter, who called Christians, "perfected Jews"? The very same Ann Coulter who made comments directed at widdows of 9/11, by the nature of, "[now] that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."? You take that as a compliment? The answer? Yes.
Michelle Malkin has unfortunately managed to gain some fame from appearing on MSNBC, C-SPAN, and, of course, Fox "News". In fact, this woman has co-hosted the "O'Reilly Factor" on multiple occaisions. This was, until, Geraldo Revera, made comments about Malkin. He said, "Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life. She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people. It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in NY. I’d spit on her if I saw her." Geraldo Rivera is not a liberal. He works for Fox "News". He has made huge critisms of The New York Times. Aside from putting Malkin's "Liberals hate conservative minorities"-bullshit to shame, this quote proves one thing: if a "radical" conservative like Geraldo Rivera despises Malkin, then she must be truly awful.
A quick Google search pulled up two stories which should be brought to light. Both of these stories are not deep-dark secrets from Malkin's past. They are not lies. In fact, she is quite proud of both of these. The fact that someone, being completely serious, could actually think up such vile concepts and actually report them, sickens me.
In 2004, Michelle Malkin released her second book, "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror". In the book, Malkin attempts to justify the racism that controlled our country during the internment of Japanese-Americans. She then draws comparisons to our current war on terror, enticing prejudice against Muslims and Arabs. I have no problem with intelligently voicing an opinion that may not be my own as long as it is intelligently written. However, this book banks off of an ignorance of different cultures and a fear of anything associated with the Middle East. It seems to me, that Malkin has picked the easiest solution to the issue or terrorism, but not the most intelligent or fair answer.
The second story, comes from an early 2008 controversy involving Rachel Ray and Dunkin Donuts. In a new ad campaign, the Food Network's Rachel Ray was seen in a black and white scarf, to which Malkin expressed great outrage. Michelle notes that, Rachel Ray is "clueless[ly] sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh in a recent DD ad campaign. I’m hoping her hate couture choice was spurred more by ignorance than ideology." Does this woman dare speak on others' ignornace? The scarf worn by Rachel Ray, the same style as worn by John McCain's daughter, is extremely popular among United States and British troops as well as citizens of the Middle East, regardless of political or religious views. In fact, the stylehas become so famous that popular clothing brands, such as Hollister and Abercrombie & Fitch, have begun production of the scarf. Malkin, are you so much of a fear monger that proud Americans have to abandon their fasion accessories - even ones made by all American companies such as Abercrombie & Fitch!?
I advise everyone to Be On The Lookout for Michelle Malkin, for being a self hating Asian-American, fear mongering against Muslims and Arabs, and being an complete attention whore.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Katy Perry: Gay Ally or Tool of the Establishment (For A Lack of a Better Term...)
Video link is here. The video is even avaiable in HD - that's even better quality than YouTube's "High Quality" setting.
The two women in the video besides Katy Perry are Margaret Cho and Amanda Palmer. Both bisexuals, Palmer, a singer, and Cho a comedian/gay rights activist whose latest work was starring in Proposition 8: The Musical. I have always had mixed feelings for Perry: I supported her enough to defend her from Fox "News" and Bill O'Reilly's homophobic attacks but I was very critical of how positive her song was for the LGBT Community at large. Similarly, I question how good this video will be for the community as a whole and I question the true valor of Perry's pro-gay tendancies.
Personally, I loved the video. I found it very amusing, somewhat attractive, and I enjoyed the message at the end. Katy Perry isn't perfect and truth-be-told I had never heard of Amanda Palmer before this video, but I have been a huge Margaret Cho fan for quite some time. The song, "I Kissed A Girl" is very catchy, too. However, you can read my commentary on "I Kissed A Girl" here -- this isn't what this post is about.
To begin with, I'm not so sure about Perry. Coming from a religious extremist background and starting off her career as a Christian singer, she is no stranger to the far-Right. After minimal success, Perry released an EP entitled "Ur So Gay" which has been accurately labeled as "homophobic" by various sources. The title song is about an over effeminate ex-boyfriend of the singer and the negative aspects of the relationship. In this song the word "gay", is not only used in a derogatory sense, but it is used to describe a feminine-acting male - something all gay males aren't necessarily. Despite this overtone - and the slightly homophobic content of "I Kissed A Girl" - the rest of her first album, "One of the Boys", doesn't seem too bad. During interviews she has admitted to her bicuriosity and, during this performance, Perry has evidently pledged her support to the opposition of Proposition 8.
Onto the performance! Margaret Cho, the one with the purple dildo, and Amanda Palmer ambush Katy Perry amidst her rendition of "I Kissed A Girl". Perry eventually "gives in" and begins to passionately grope and kiss Palmer, while Cho continues to hump Perry. Now, there isn't anything wrong with lesbian sex. However, the LGBT community has long had to fight a battle against the "sexual harassment" stereotype; the stereotype which labels every non-straight person as an uncontrollable sex fiend. When this act ends, a curtain is pulled over the trio, by two men. When the curtain is removed, Cho is costumed as a Christian priest and Palmer and Perry are costumed in wedding dresses. Cho really risks mocking people of religion, but her character doesn't seem to be over-the-top and I cannot see too many people offended by her portrayal. (I now await Bill O'Reilly's response...) For the finale of this act, the curtain is raised again, this time with the words "Fuck Prop 8" written upon it. The two men holding the banner had their middle fingers right up in the air. As much as the crowd, and myself, thought this statement was bold and honorable, we really must watch how we address our anger. The people who are against same-sex marraige are mostly religious people; religion is a very personal sentiment. The LGBT community has no hatred or anomosity towards Christians or religious peoples, but such a debate can easily blur the lines of sensibility.
In my opinion, this video will be received differently by different groups of people. The younger same-sex supporters will mostly see this as a positive pop-culture embrace of love. The anti-gay Fundamentalists - of any age - will view this negatively. The older LGBT supporters, despite most of them agreeing with the "Fuck Prop 8" message at the end, will probably find this video to be frivolous. Still, I cannot see this video gaining much press over the next few weeks. It's the holiday season: a time for happiness, even when a large group of people, such as the LGBT community, is constantly mistreated.
The two women in the video besides Katy Perry are Margaret Cho and Amanda Palmer. Both bisexuals, Palmer, a singer, and Cho a comedian/gay rights activist whose latest work was starring in Proposition 8: The Musical. I have always had mixed feelings for Perry: I supported her enough to defend her from Fox "News" and Bill O'Reilly's homophobic attacks but I was very critical of how positive her song was for the LGBT Community at large. Similarly, I question how good this video will be for the community as a whole and I question the true valor of Perry's pro-gay tendancies.
Personally, I loved the video. I found it very amusing, somewhat attractive, and I enjoyed the message at the end. Katy Perry isn't perfect and truth-be-told I had never heard of Amanda Palmer before this video, but I have been a huge Margaret Cho fan for quite some time. The song, "I Kissed A Girl" is very catchy, too. However, you can read my commentary on "I Kissed A Girl" here -- this isn't what this post is about.
To begin with, I'm not so sure about Perry. Coming from a religious extremist background and starting off her career as a Christian singer, she is no stranger to the far-Right. After minimal success, Perry released an EP entitled "Ur So Gay" which has been accurately labeled as "homophobic" by various sources. The title song is about an over effeminate ex-boyfriend of the singer and the negative aspects of the relationship. In this song the word "gay", is not only used in a derogatory sense, but it is used to describe a feminine-acting male - something all gay males aren't necessarily. Despite this overtone - and the slightly homophobic content of "I Kissed A Girl" - the rest of her first album, "One of the Boys", doesn't seem too bad. During interviews she has admitted to her bicuriosity and, during this performance, Perry has evidently pledged her support to the opposition of Proposition 8.
Onto the performance! Margaret Cho, the one with the purple dildo, and Amanda Palmer ambush Katy Perry amidst her rendition of "I Kissed A Girl". Perry eventually "gives in" and begins to passionately grope and kiss Palmer, while Cho continues to hump Perry. Now, there isn't anything wrong with lesbian sex. However, the LGBT community has long had to fight a battle against the "sexual harassment" stereotype; the stereotype which labels every non-straight person as an uncontrollable sex fiend. When this act ends, a curtain is pulled over the trio, by two men. When the curtain is removed, Cho is costumed as a Christian priest and Palmer and Perry are costumed in wedding dresses. Cho really risks mocking people of religion, but her character doesn't seem to be over-the-top and I cannot see too many people offended by her portrayal. (I now await Bill O'Reilly's response...) For the finale of this act, the curtain is raised again, this time with the words "Fuck Prop 8" written upon it. The two men holding the banner had their middle fingers right up in the air. As much as the crowd, and myself, thought this statement was bold and honorable, we really must watch how we address our anger. The people who are against same-sex marraige are mostly religious people; religion is a very personal sentiment. The LGBT community has no hatred or anomosity towards Christians or religious peoples, but such a debate can easily blur the lines of sensibility.
In my opinion, this video will be received differently by different groups of people. The younger same-sex supporters will mostly see this as a positive pop-culture embrace of love. The anti-gay Fundamentalists - of any age - will view this negatively. The older LGBT supporters, despite most of them agreeing with the "Fuck Prop 8" message at the end, will probably find this video to be frivolous. Still, I cannot see this video gaining much press over the next few weeks. It's the holiday season: a time for happiness, even when a large group of people, such as the LGBT community, is constantly mistreated.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
"Arab Money": Offensive or Just Plain Dumb?
On November 11th, 2008, Busta Rhymes released his new song "Arab Money (featuring Ron Browz)" to the iTunes Music Store. When at first I saw this new song, I ignored it. Truthfully, I ignore all rap songs, at first glance, if the title includes the words "money", "paper", or "cash" in it; the last thing I need another materialistic rap song with an auto-tuned chorus and generic lyrics. However, YouTube managed to convince me one day to give it a listen. What I saw and heard shocked me.
Now, if I were to forward this video to every person in America, my strong suspicion is that the overwhelming majority of Americans would see nothing wrong with the song. I good number of those people would probably enjoy it. However, such ignorance should not be tolerated.
Busta Rhymes, the "Break Ya Neck", "New York City Shit", and "I Love My Bitch" hitmaker, has stated in multiple interviews that he is a practicing Muslim. (Source) Still, I do not think this validates the questionable lyrics of the song, in fact it just displays his own hypocracy. If I was gay, I would not say, "fag", if I were black I wouldn't use the "n-word", and if I were Asian I wouldn't use "gook", anymore than I do now. Being a member of a group of people does not validate use of certain derogatory terms or condescending statements. In the song "Arab Money (Featuring Ron Browz)" and "Arab Money (Remix) [Featuring Diddy, Ron Browz, Swizz Beatz, T-Pain , Akon, and Lil' Wayne]" there are many offensive and harmful comments and sentiments against Arabic and Islamic culture. I am aware that there is a seemingly daily release of a new version or remix of this song, but I will stick to the original and official remix for now.
"Bismillahi r-rahmani r-rahim. Al hamdu lillahi rabbi l-’ālamin"
"In the name of Allah, most gracious most merciful. All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds." (Translation Source)
This is used as the chorus and is taken from the Surah Fateha (which is from the Holy Qu'Ran). It seems rather blasphemous to take such a holy prayer and put it to use in a rap song with such a materialistic overtone.
“Dropping bombs like the Taliban“
“Sitting in casinos while I’m gambling with Arafat“
Both of these lyrics are grouped together for a good reason: they both link Arabic and Islamic culture to extremism and to terrorism. These lyrics are hardly what needs to be spoken to the already fearful American public.
“While I make you bow down and make Salaat like a Muslim“
This lyric isn't too bad, but I do I believe scrutiny is needed. Busta, are you trying to compare a sexual act which requires "[bowing] down" to a praying ritual of the Islamic faith?
“All the girls love me, yeah pop some bubbly“
Both drinking and promiscuous behavior are not allowed under Islamic law. Why is a self proclaimed Muslim decribing these activites in an Arab themed song?
"As-Salamu Alaykum Warahmatullah Wa Barakatu"
"Peace be upon you" (This is a greeting)
"Habibi"
"My love"
"Al hamdu lillah"
"Praise be to Allah"
These are just a collection of other parts of the song in actual Arabic. I don't really have a problem with these lyrics, other than using the context it is used in: a rap song about exceeding wealth and greed, drinking alcohol, and implied sex.
The Cover:
The cover has nothing directly offensive on it. Busta Rhymes is dressed in expensive clothing (I believe the scarf is from Louis Vuitton), displaying a matching ring and watch, and standing next to a luxury automobile. However, the text that says "Arab Money" and "feat Ron Browz" is written in fake Arabic caligraphy. This style of writing developed over time as a language to worship Allah with. Due to the nature of the cover, the music video, and of the lyrical content of "Arab Money", this text is almost mocking this style of Caligraphy and inherently mocking Allah.
Now, I must give credit to Busta Rhymes and everyone else on this record. This is not the most offensive rap song I've ever heard; the hypocritical religious over tones (such as 50 Cent with Get Rich or Die Tryin') have been much worse than on here. Despite Busta Rhymes' other ignorance, such as his admitted homophobia, I do not believe him to have created this song to be offensive towards Islamic or Arabic culture. Still, he has created one and not possibly at a worse time. Even over seven years since September 11th, a good number of Americans are Islamophobic, believing that all Muslims are terrorists. Such Islamophobia was displayed when Barack Obama's religion was disputed by Fox "News" (and soon by all of the other leeching media sources) and believed by a good number of people. Still, Busta Rhymes may believe that disrepsecting the First Amendment means anything less than being downright asinine and offensive, we can only hope that his target audience knows better.
Now, if I were to forward this video to every person in America, my strong suspicion is that the overwhelming majority of Americans would see nothing wrong with the song. I good number of those people would probably enjoy it. However, such ignorance should not be tolerated.
Busta Rhymes, the "Break Ya Neck", "New York City Shit", and "I Love My Bitch" hitmaker, has stated in multiple interviews that he is a practicing Muslim. (Source) Still, I do not think this validates the questionable lyrics of the song, in fact it just displays his own hypocracy. If I was gay, I would not say, "fag", if I were black I wouldn't use the "n-word", and if I were Asian I wouldn't use "gook", anymore than I do now. Being a member of a group of people does not validate use of certain derogatory terms or condescending statements. In the song "Arab Money (Featuring Ron Browz)" and "Arab Money (Remix) [Featuring Diddy, Ron Browz, Swizz Beatz, T-Pain , Akon, and Lil' Wayne]" there are many offensive and harmful comments and sentiments against Arabic and Islamic culture. I am aware that there is a seemingly daily release of a new version or remix of this song, but I will stick to the original and official remix for now.
"Bismillahi r-rahmani r-rahim. Al hamdu lillahi rabbi l-’ālamin"
"In the name of Allah, most gracious most merciful. All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds." (Translation Source)
This is used as the chorus and is taken from the Surah Fateha (which is from the Holy Qu'Ran). It seems rather blasphemous to take such a holy prayer and put it to use in a rap song with such a materialistic overtone.
“Dropping bombs like the Taliban“
“Sitting in casinos while I’m gambling with Arafat“
Both of these lyrics are grouped together for a good reason: they both link Arabic and Islamic culture to extremism and to terrorism. These lyrics are hardly what needs to be spoken to the already fearful American public.
“While I make you bow down and make Salaat like a Muslim“
This lyric isn't too bad, but I do I believe scrutiny is needed. Busta, are you trying to compare a sexual act which requires "[bowing] down" to a praying ritual of the Islamic faith?
“All the girls love me, yeah pop some bubbly“
Both drinking and promiscuous behavior are not allowed under Islamic law. Why is a self proclaimed Muslim decribing these activites in an Arab themed song?
"As-Salamu Alaykum Warahmatullah Wa Barakatu"
"Peace be upon you" (This is a greeting)
"Habibi"
"My love"
"Al hamdu lillah"
"Praise be to Allah"
These are just a collection of other parts of the song in actual Arabic. I don't really have a problem with these lyrics, other than using the context it is used in: a rap song about exceeding wealth and greed, drinking alcohol, and implied sex.
The Cover:
The cover has nothing directly offensive on it. Busta Rhymes is dressed in expensive clothing (I believe the scarf is from Louis Vuitton), displaying a matching ring and watch, and standing next to a luxury automobile. However, the text that says "Arab Money" and "feat Ron Browz" is written in fake Arabic caligraphy. This style of writing developed over time as a language to worship Allah with. Due to the nature of the cover, the music video, and of the lyrical content of "Arab Money", this text is almost mocking this style of Caligraphy and inherently mocking Allah.
Now, I must give credit to Busta Rhymes and everyone else on this record. This is not the most offensive rap song I've ever heard; the hypocritical religious over tones (such as 50 Cent with Get Rich or Die Tryin') have been much worse than on here. Despite Busta Rhymes' other ignorance, such as his admitted homophobia, I do not believe him to have created this song to be offensive towards Islamic or Arabic culture. Still, he has created one and not possibly at a worse time. Even over seven years since September 11th, a good number of Americans are Islamophobic, believing that all Muslims are terrorists. Such Islamophobia was displayed when Barack Obama's religion was disputed by Fox "News" (and soon by all of the other leeching media sources) and believed by a good number of people. Still, Busta Rhymes may believe that disrepsecting the First Amendment means anything less than being downright asinine and offensive, we can only hope that his target audience knows better.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Moore: On The Bailout
I don't usually do this. Well, I don't usually do a lot of things that will be done in today's post. First off, I don't usually link to YouTube videos over writing my own opinions. I find this to be impersonal and frankly, can get a bit much. You are reading this to find out what I think, not some 12-year-old kid with a webcam, shouting about politics. Second, I usually don't cite biased media for sources. Don't get me wrong - Keith Olbermann is very intelligent, very funny, and I enjoy watching his show. However, he is also VERY opinionated and somewhat biased. Micheal Moore is neither fair nor balanced either (and I dislike his fact embellishment), however he's right on the ball for this one.
I ask you to forget about your biases against MSNBC or Keith Olbermann. I ask you to forget your biases against Micheal Moore or Liberalism. I ask you to forget any anti-Democratic Party bias you may have - this bailout needs cooperation.
YouTube Link and Transcript.
Thoughts?
In my opinion, Moore is correct, although he failed to mention one thing: we need to have a nonpartisan board to review the Big 3's spending. Regardless of whether or not this is a loan, the American people should not have to endure reckless CEO behavior. This is a difficult issue and political party be damned; this bailout has turned into an "every man for himself" struggle. I just hope that our $17 billion is spent wisely. Otherwise, as either Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert once said, "At some point we're going to realize that this is real money!"
I ask you to forget about your biases against MSNBC or Keith Olbermann. I ask you to forget your biases against Micheal Moore or Liberalism. I ask you to forget any anti-Democratic Party bias you may have - this bailout needs cooperation.
YouTube Link and Transcript.
Thoughts?
In my opinion, Moore is correct, although he failed to mention one thing: we need to have a nonpartisan board to review the Big 3's spending. Regardless of whether or not this is a loan, the American people should not have to endure reckless CEO behavior. This is a difficult issue and political party be damned; this bailout has turned into an "every man for himself" struggle. I just hope that our $17 billion is spent wisely. Otherwise, as either Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert once said, "At some point we're going to realize that this is real money!"
Review: 빅뱅 (Big Bang) Makes An Album To "Remember"
Please Note: In this review, I will use Eastern-Asian characters for some of the names and words. If you are running a Windows computer and cannot view these characters, you can use this guide for Vista or this guide for XP. If you are running a Mac you may use this guide. If you are running Linux, you're on your own. Please note that I did not author any of these guides and also that enabling these languages will NOT turn your Default Language into an Eastern-Asian language. Sorry for any inconveniences.
In 2006, 빅뱅 came onto the music scene, quickly skyrocketing to the top of the Korean music charts, influencing Korean fashion, being the subject of a reality show, and gaining international attention. In 2006, 빅뱅 had their first number one hit, "거짓말" ("Lies"), making the name "빅뱅" a conversation centerpiece. In the wake of initial success, 빅뱅 managed to keep the hits coming with "마지막 인사" ("Last Farewell"), "D.I.S.C.O." (technically this was not by 빅뱅, it was done by 엄정화, her album being produced entirely by YG Entertainment and the song having a verse rapped by 빅뱅-member T.O.P.), and "하루 하루". 빅뱅 has seen success in Japan as well, after doing considerably well releasing two Japanese EP's and one full album. Despite all of their subsequent success, it was high-time for 빅뱅 to return to their roots: make a new full album in South Korea. "Remember" is just that album.
The album begins, as usual, with an electronica inspired introduction track, namely "모두 다 소리쳐 (Introduction)", which sets the scene for the entire album. The next two songs, "오, 아, 오", "뷹은 노을", and "반짝반짝", follow suit; catchy, electronica, fast-paced pop music: 빅뱅's forté. 승리 comes in with the solo "Strong Baby", what would seem to be Justin Timberlake meets Korea, succeeding in a perfect club-banger. "Wonderful", which is best described as 빅뱅's "Always: Part 2" has a relaxed feel and retains more sentiment than the preceeding song, boasting lyrics such as "Let's party baby/ Shake it, baby / All night long, just one shot, baby!". "멍청한 사랑" is easily the slowest real song on the entire album, but the synth machine being in full effect, makes this song not sound completely out of place and feels like the correct way to end the album.
While there are four more songs on 빅뱅's "Remember", they are all bonus tracks and remixes. Still, I strongly suggest giving these a listening to. Despite the acoustic remix of "하루 하루" feeling awkard and forced at times, this new version does provide another certain depth to the song. The "거짓말" and "마지막 인사" remixes hold true to the originals while adding a new dance/house aspect to these once-overplayed hits. The last track, "Remember", ironically was first added to their Japanese release, "Number One", and recored in Japanese. In this newer version, "Remember" has been re-recorded in Korean and is easily the most out-of-place song on the entire album. I wasn't a fan of it in Japanese and the Korean version sounds just as mediocre. This is the only song that I actually disliked on the album.
Regardless of the country or language, whether the song be in Korean, English, or Japanese, and regardless of who in the group is performing, one aspect has been made painfully obvious: 빅뱅 is on the top of their game when they make fast-paced, techno/electronica-influenced, dancable, hip-hop/pop music. "Remember" is arguably the group's greatest work yet, beating out their first lack-luster album "Since 2007" (despite its 2006 release), their eight EP albums (each following the same guidelines: one or two great songs and three or four throw-away, failed attemps at R&B), and their lame English lyrics that need desperate attention (such as, "It’s getting tough in the scene / The place is jumping now / I grab her hand and proceed / To the crowd that’s tumbling", sounding like a 1980's Micheal Jackson ripoff and 강대성's accent causing "proceed" sound like "pussy"). If 빅뱅 is lucky, a string of hit-singles will find their way into 빅뱅's already bright future. If 빅뱅 is not so lucky, then they will probably only have 2 or 3 hits. Either way, nice job boys: "Remember", by 빅뱅, is an all-around excellent album.
I'd give it an...8.5 out of 10.
In 2006, 빅뱅 came onto the music scene, quickly skyrocketing to the top of the Korean music charts, influencing Korean fashion, being the subject of a reality show, and gaining international attention. In 2006, 빅뱅 had their first number one hit, "거짓말" ("Lies"), making the name "빅뱅" a conversation centerpiece. In the wake of initial success, 빅뱅 managed to keep the hits coming with "마지막 인사" ("Last Farewell"), "D.I.S.C.O." (technically this was not by 빅뱅, it was done by 엄정화, her album being produced entirely by YG Entertainment and the song having a verse rapped by 빅뱅-member T.O.P.), and "하루 하루". 빅뱅 has seen success in Japan as well, after doing considerably well releasing two Japanese EP's and one full album. Despite all of their subsequent success, it was high-time for 빅뱅 to return to their roots: make a new full album in South Korea. "Remember" is just that album.
The album begins, as usual, with an electronica inspired introduction track, namely "모두 다 소리쳐 (Introduction)", which sets the scene for the entire album. The next two songs, "오, 아, 오", "뷹은 노을", and "반짝반짝", follow suit; catchy, electronica, fast-paced pop music: 빅뱅's forté. 승리 comes in with the solo "Strong Baby", what would seem to be Justin Timberlake meets Korea, succeeding in a perfect club-banger. "Wonderful", which is best described as 빅뱅's "Always: Part 2" has a relaxed feel and retains more sentiment than the preceeding song, boasting lyrics such as "Let's party baby/ Shake it, baby / All night long, just one shot, baby!". "멍청한 사랑" is easily the slowest real song on the entire album, but the synth machine being in full effect, makes this song not sound completely out of place and feels like the correct way to end the album.
While there are four more songs on 빅뱅's "Remember", they are all bonus tracks and remixes. Still, I strongly suggest giving these a listening to. Despite the acoustic remix of "하루 하루" feeling awkard and forced at times, this new version does provide another certain depth to the song. The "거짓말" and "마지막 인사" remixes hold true to the originals while adding a new dance/house aspect to these once-overplayed hits. The last track, "Remember", ironically was first added to their Japanese release, "Number One", and recored in Japanese. In this newer version, "Remember" has been re-recorded in Korean and is easily the most out-of-place song on the entire album. I wasn't a fan of it in Japanese and the Korean version sounds just as mediocre. This is the only song that I actually disliked on the album.
Regardless of the country or language, whether the song be in Korean, English, or Japanese, and regardless of who in the group is performing, one aspect has been made painfully obvious: 빅뱅 is on the top of their game when they make fast-paced, techno/electronica-influenced, dancable, hip-hop/pop music. "Remember" is arguably the group's greatest work yet, beating out their first lack-luster album "Since 2007" (despite its 2006 release), their eight EP albums (each following the same guidelines: one or two great songs and three or four throw-away, failed attemps at R&B), and their lame English lyrics that need desperate attention (such as, "It’s getting tough in the scene / The place is jumping now / I grab her hand and proceed / To the crowd that’s tumbling", sounding like a 1980's Micheal Jackson ripoff and 강대성's accent causing "proceed" sound like "pussy"). If 빅뱅 is lucky, a string of hit-singles will find their way into 빅뱅's already bright future. If 빅뱅 is not so lucky, then they will probably only have 2 or 3 hits. Either way, nice job boys: "Remember", by 빅뱅, is an all-around excellent album.
I'd give it an...8.5 out of 10.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Response: "War on Christmas" Debunked
Bill O'Reilly seems to have just released an article that can be found right here. It was so ignorant, that a reply is absolutely necessary. What Bill said is bolded, while my responses aren't.
In 1870, President Grant signed a law making Christmas Day a federal holiday, a national day of celebration. Congress overwhelmingly voted to make that happen and Grant understood that this was not a trivial gesture. The nation remained deeply divided in the aftermath of the Civil War and the federal government was looking for ways to reunite the people. Since Christmas was loved by almost everyone, the national holiday became a symbol of healing and unity.
However, Bill leaves much out of this tale. 1870, anything un-Christian was simply unheard of. It was a completely different time for America. Twenty years before 1870, war was waged largely upon a question of whether or not African-Americans were slaves or not. We, in 2008, have just elected our first non-White President. Still, Bill misses the point; the first Amendment is fairly explicit in the Seperation of Church and State. If "Christmas" is religious then it is un-Constitutional. The only way for Christmas to Constitutionally be a National Holiday is if it is Secular.
Now, America is divided again, this time over social behavior. Traditional Americans want to hold on to the beliefs and institutions that, they believe, have made the country great, while secular-progressives lobby for aggressive change—things like redefining marriage to include homosexuals and other redefinitions of tradition.
I highly doubt that people started saying "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" because of LGBT rights. In fact, Wal*Mart (one of O'Reilly's favorite targets because of the store's policies against saying "Merry Christmas") scored a 40 out of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign's 2009 Buyer's Guide. This is a simple logical fallacy.
Thus, deep divisions are growing in America and, somewhat shockingly, Christmas is right in the middle of it.
How? I see that there are huge political and social divides due to the issues of abortion and LGBT rights, but Christmas? Really? How many stores have been bombed for saying "Season's Greetings"? How many Matthew Sheppard's have there been due to them wishing others "Happy Holidays"?
A few years ago some retail companies ordered their employees not to say the words "Merry Christmas" because they might offend people who do not celebrate the national holiday. Of course, that was insane. These companies were marketing the gift-giving season that accompanies Christmas but were refusing to utter the word? Please.
After an exposition of this by me and some other media people, millions of Americans decided not to spend money in the offending quarters, and the banishment of Christmas quickly ceased. I guess money trumps offending people all day long.
Really? Where are the statistics? Where are the facts? Since everyone knows that your infamous boycott of French products failed, why should we believe this claim? In fact, your boycott of French goods failed so badly, that French imports into the US increased! Unlike, Bill O'Reilly, I have the facts to back this up, right here.
This season there is another Christmas controversy, this one engineered by some atheists who want to display signs on public property if Christmas or Hanukkah symbols are present. So far, only Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington state have caved in to the atheists, but it is just a matter of time before the non-believers come to a state house near you.
What really got O'Reilly's goat, per se, was a sign that was posted at a Washington state nativity scene, which read, "At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." I'll admit that I have mixed feelings about the sign. First off, why was there a nativity scene at a Government building? Second, I do think that they have just as much of a right to question religion as O'Reilly (and other such Right-Wing pundits) have to berate homosexuals. Right in the First Amendment, we have freedom of speech along with Freedom of Religion. Now, on a personal note, despite being Agnostic, I disagree with the methods that this atheist group used to get their message across: I think it focuses a negative message when what we need is a positive one.
The problem with the atheist displays in Washington and Wisconsin is that the message is hateful, an attack on religion rather than a positive message. In Madison, then-Governor Tommy Thompson allowed the anti-religious sign, but posted it far away from the Nativity scene and the Menorah.
But in Olympia, Governor Christine Gregoire, a secular-progressive politician, has allowed a sign in the capitol rotunda that says religion enslaves people, among other not-nice things, to be placed within a few feet of Jesus in the manger. And peace on earth to you, too, Governor.
Of course, Gregoire did not have to do that. The legal settlement in Washington clearly states that any holiday display must be appropriate and reflect the decorum of the state capitol building.
I do not really find it to be as "hateful" as O'Reilly does but, as stated above, the approach should have been more positive. Once again, I'm not sure why there were nativity scenes and Manorahs at a Government Institution, but I digress.
So, the atheist anti-religion sign could have easily been rejected as being inappropriate. If the non-believers want a seasonal display, make it a positive thing. Put a picture of Charles Darwin and Bill Maher up there with the words "These are our guys... happy Winter Solstice!"
But, no, the atheists have to attack the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Wise Men and whoever else dropped by the Bethlehem birthplace.
See, here's where I get confused with Bill-O's message: his comparisons are a little off-beat. He is obviously making an unfunny joke about atheists ("non-believers" is a hateful term for non-Christians) but then he compares this with the Christian equivilent: Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Wise Men, and "whoever else dropped by the Bethlehem birthplace". So, what O'Reilly is saying, is that either he considers Bill Maher and Charles Darwin to have as much importance as Mary and Jesus, or he considers Mary and Jesus to be a joke.
Atheists well understand that Christmas is the most visible display of religion in the world, and any diminishment of it is a good thing to militant secularists.
Bill O'Reilly works for Fox News, who has dedicated a large chunk of their time (especially in regard to the 2008 election) to pairing up Muslims with Islamic extremists. If anything, wouldn't terrorist attacks be the "most visible display of religion in the world"? (Not to say that all religions and not to say that Islam breeds terrorists, because they do not.) And who are these "militant secularists"? Neither Bill Maher, Charles Darwin, nor any of the other "secular progressives" mentioned are "militant" in any use of the word.
But it is inconceivable that Ulysses S. Grant, believing he finally had a slam-dunk issue in which to unite a fractured country, could have foreseen the social civil war we have today.
WHAT WAR? Right-wing radio, Fox News, and you are the only ones who care about this issue! We are experiencing a Recession and you're ranting about stores that try to be a little tolerant!?
Sadly, we are no longer one nation under God.
Fun Fact: "One nation under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, which would mean that numerous generations spoke it without the word "God" for 62 years. This means that our Pledge has been without the word "God", longer than with it.
But those of us who truly understand the spirit of Christmas, the simple message of good will toward all men,
PAUSE! If that is the message of Christmas, then why does O'Reilly care what the stores say? Is Bill encouraging the materialistic aspect of the holiday?
[...] understand that Ulysses S. Grant was on to something. Christmas should be a time of peace and understanding.
Pause, again. If this is true, then why is "The O'Reilly Factor" such a breeding ground for homophobia, racism, and fake wars on Christmas?
It's sad that we now have to defend that.
Against who? If you care so deeply about the middle class, then talk about the Recession, how people can save money, or something constructive! Don't create meaningless party division by inciting bickering between parties.
In 1870, President Grant signed a law making Christmas Day a federal holiday, a national day of celebration. Congress overwhelmingly voted to make that happen and Grant understood that this was not a trivial gesture. The nation remained deeply divided in the aftermath of the Civil War and the federal government was looking for ways to reunite the people. Since Christmas was loved by almost everyone, the national holiday became a symbol of healing and unity.
However, Bill leaves much out of this tale. 1870, anything un-Christian was simply unheard of. It was a completely different time for America. Twenty years before 1870, war was waged largely upon a question of whether or not African-Americans were slaves or not. We, in 2008, have just elected our first non-White President. Still, Bill misses the point; the first Amendment is fairly explicit in the Seperation of Church and State. If "Christmas" is religious then it is un-Constitutional. The only way for Christmas to Constitutionally be a National Holiday is if it is Secular.
Now, America is divided again, this time over social behavior. Traditional Americans want to hold on to the beliefs and institutions that, they believe, have made the country great, while secular-progressives lobby for aggressive change—things like redefining marriage to include homosexuals and other redefinitions of tradition.
I highly doubt that people started saying "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" because of LGBT rights. In fact, Wal*Mart (one of O'Reilly's favorite targets because of the store's policies against saying "Merry Christmas") scored a 40 out of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign's 2009 Buyer's Guide. This is a simple logical fallacy.
Thus, deep divisions are growing in America and, somewhat shockingly, Christmas is right in the middle of it.
How? I see that there are huge political and social divides due to the issues of abortion and LGBT rights, but Christmas? Really? How many stores have been bombed for saying "Season's Greetings"? How many Matthew Sheppard's have there been due to them wishing others "Happy Holidays"?
A few years ago some retail companies ordered their employees not to say the words "Merry Christmas" because they might offend people who do not celebrate the national holiday. Of course, that was insane. These companies were marketing the gift-giving season that accompanies Christmas but were refusing to utter the word? Please.
The Christmas season co-exists with the Jewish Hanukkah season, the Islamic New Year and their Eid ul-Adha celebration, the Hindi Kartik Poornima festival, the Buddhist Bodhi (or “Enlightenment”) Day, the Agnostic and/or Atheist's Winter Solstice, and the non-religious New Year's Celebration. (I left out regional holidays such as "Boxing Day", but be aware that there are many local celebrations that are not directly Christian.) Granted, most people buying gifts are probably Christian and most shoppers (Christian or not) could give a damn less whether or not they are told to have a "Merry Chirstmas" or not. But, still, why attack stores for trying to be tolerant?
After an exposition of this by me and some other media people, millions of Americans decided not to spend money in the offending quarters, and the banishment of Christmas quickly ceased. I guess money trumps offending people all day long.
Really? Where are the statistics? Where are the facts? Since everyone knows that your infamous boycott of French products failed, why should we believe this claim? In fact, your boycott of French goods failed so badly, that French imports into the US increased! Unlike, Bill O'Reilly, I have the facts to back this up, right here.
This season there is another Christmas controversy, this one engineered by some atheists who want to display signs on public property if Christmas or Hanukkah symbols are present. So far, only Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington state have caved in to the atheists, but it is just a matter of time before the non-believers come to a state house near you.
What really got O'Reilly's goat, per se, was a sign that was posted at a Washington state nativity scene, which read, "At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." I'll admit that I have mixed feelings about the sign. First off, why was there a nativity scene at a Government building? Second, I do think that they have just as much of a right to question religion as O'Reilly (and other such Right-Wing pundits) have to berate homosexuals. Right in the First Amendment, we have freedom of speech along with Freedom of Religion. Now, on a personal note, despite being Agnostic, I disagree with the methods that this atheist group used to get their message across: I think it focuses a negative message when what we need is a positive one.
The problem with the atheist displays in Washington and Wisconsin is that the message is hateful, an attack on religion rather than a positive message. In Madison, then-Governor Tommy Thompson allowed the anti-religious sign, but posted it far away from the Nativity scene and the Menorah.
But in Olympia, Governor Christine Gregoire, a secular-progressive politician, has allowed a sign in the capitol rotunda that says religion enslaves people, among other not-nice things, to be placed within a few feet of Jesus in the manger. And peace on earth to you, too, Governor.
Of course, Gregoire did not have to do that. The legal settlement in Washington clearly states that any holiday display must be appropriate and reflect the decorum of the state capitol building.
I do not really find it to be as "hateful" as O'Reilly does but, as stated above, the approach should have been more positive. Once again, I'm not sure why there were nativity scenes and Manorahs at a Government Institution, but I digress.
So, the atheist anti-religion sign could have easily been rejected as being inappropriate. If the non-believers want a seasonal display, make it a positive thing. Put a picture of Charles Darwin and Bill Maher up there with the words "These are our guys... happy Winter Solstice!"
But, no, the atheists have to attack the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Wise Men and whoever else dropped by the Bethlehem birthplace.
See, here's where I get confused with Bill-O's message: his comparisons are a little off-beat. He is obviously making an unfunny joke about atheists ("non-believers" is a hateful term for non-Christians) but then he compares this with the Christian equivilent: Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Wise Men, and "whoever else dropped by the Bethlehem birthplace". So, what O'Reilly is saying, is that either he considers Bill Maher and Charles Darwin to have as much importance as Mary and Jesus, or he considers Mary and Jesus to be a joke.
Atheists well understand that Christmas is the most visible display of religion in the world, and any diminishment of it is a good thing to militant secularists.
Bill O'Reilly works for Fox News, who has dedicated a large chunk of their time (especially in regard to the 2008 election) to pairing up Muslims with Islamic extremists. If anything, wouldn't terrorist attacks be the "most visible display of religion in the world"? (Not to say that all religions and not to say that Islam breeds terrorists, because they do not.) And who are these "militant secularists"? Neither Bill Maher, Charles Darwin, nor any of the other "secular progressives" mentioned are "militant" in any use of the word.
But it is inconceivable that Ulysses S. Grant, believing he finally had a slam-dunk issue in which to unite a fractured country, could have foreseen the social civil war we have today.
WHAT WAR? Right-wing radio, Fox News, and you are the only ones who care about this issue! We are experiencing a Recession and you're ranting about stores that try to be a little tolerant!?
Sadly, we are no longer one nation under God.
Fun Fact: "One nation under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, which would mean that numerous generations spoke it without the word "God" for 62 years. This means that our Pledge has been without the word "God", longer than with it.
But those of us who truly understand the spirit of Christmas, the simple message of good will toward all men,
PAUSE! If that is the message of Christmas, then why does O'Reilly care what the stores say? Is Bill encouraging the materialistic aspect of the holiday?
[...] understand that Ulysses S. Grant was on to something. Christmas should be a time of peace and understanding.
Pause, again. If this is true, then why is "The O'Reilly Factor" such a breeding ground for homophobia, racism, and fake wars on Christmas?
It's sad that we now have to defend that.
Against who? If you care so deeply about the middle class, then talk about the Recession, how people can save money, or something constructive! Don't create meaningless party division by inciting bickering between parties.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Change That Didn't Happen
In the past month and a half, America has demonstrated that we, as a nation, have the ability to change. However, this election gave a microphone to some of the most ignorant and bigoted voices, most going unanswered by the politicians, the pundits, and the public. As much as Barack Obama's victory was a historical and joyous event and as pleased as I was by it, I believe many problems were dug up by the election to which a response remains essential. This is not a commentary on outdated events, because of history's awful tendency to repeat itself: knowledge is the only solution for ignorance.
Several months ago, a woman at a John McCain rally approached the Presidential candidate with a concern about Barack Obama: “I don't trust Obama. I have read about him, and he's an Arab.” To this, John McCain replied, “No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.” While this may appear to be in defense of Barack Obama's Christian faith, this remark proves to be deeply disturbing. The implied Anti-Arab and Islamophobic sentiments are offensive and moronic. From John McCain's comment, it can be deduced that being a “decent family man” or a “[U.S.] Citizen” are the opposite of being an Arab. Obama was often negatively linked to Islam at other Palin/McCain rallies. There are over one billion Muslims in the world – millions in the US alone – yet large numbers of uninformed Americans still think every Muslim is an extremist, American-hating, suicide bomber. The media eventually began covering these intolerant remarks, but only after Obama's race was brought into the picture. Evidently, shouted derogatory comments about homosexuals, Muslims, and other minorities remains perfectly acceptable and not newsworthy. However, this all turns around when Obama's African-American ethnicity becomes the main topic. Suddenly, “race” becomes the prominent issue, while numerous other minorities are completely denied media exposure.
Similar insufficient media coverage occurred in the 2000 Election. Back then, McCain, in describing his guards at a Vietnamese war camp, said, “I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.” The word “gook” is derogatory U.S. Military term for people of Eastern-Asian decent, specifically Koreans and Vietnamese. In response to the minimal criticism he received, McCain rebutted by saying, “I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends.” By this logic, if his captors were of African descent, then the use of the N-word would be perfectly acceptable. It is unthinkable that America can become enraged with a sarcastic comment from Don Imus, yet John McCain can use hate-filled epithets against over 13 million Americans and the subject remains untouched. America has a long history of racism against Asians, dating back to our first few decades as a nation. The unequal payment of Asians' work on the Transcontinental Railroad, the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, and the Chinese Exclusion Act are all prime examples of our sad history. Even worse was McCain's failed attempt at justifying his comments rather than simply apologizing, as he should have done. While McCain truly has endured pain and torture for our country, his grouping of large populaces remains unacceptable.
However, the largest populous of people grouped together ignorantly in the recent election, were women. In mid-summer of 2008, nearly 18 million Hillary Clinton supporters seemed up for grabs to the two main presidential candidates. With many voters displeased, John McCain could have made many intelligent, strategic moves at this point, but what he did can only be described as awful, out-of-touch, and sexist: he picked Sarah Palin. At first this new-comer from Alaska seemed like a VP-pick from heaven: she reassured the fundamentalist Republican base, she was a “lively” speech-giver, and she had executive experience. However, it soon became painfully obvious that John McCain picked Sarah Palin for one reason: she was a woman. Despite being the political-opposite of Hillary Clinton, despite views that contradict the majority of women in America, and despite being too much a “maverick” to answer simple questions, her gender was more important to the McCain campaign then her quality as a politician. This move was not only completely sexist – assuming that women everywhere would vote for another woman, solely based on her gender – but it was imbecilic: to say that Hillary Clinton's 18 million voters were all women – who voted for Senator Clinton's gender – was completely offensive and not correct. All different ethnicities, religions, races, and sexual orientations make up the women of America; grouping them together and acting as if they all have the same political views demonstrates challenges that we still face as a nation.
Several months ago, a woman at a John McCain rally approached the Presidential candidate with a concern about Barack Obama: “I don't trust Obama. I have read about him, and he's an Arab.” To this, John McCain replied, “No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.” While this may appear to be in defense of Barack Obama's Christian faith, this remark proves to be deeply disturbing. The implied Anti-Arab and Islamophobic sentiments are offensive and moronic. From John McCain's comment, it can be deduced that being a “decent family man” or a “[U.S.] Citizen” are the opposite of being an Arab. Obama was often negatively linked to Islam at other Palin/McCain rallies. There are over one billion Muslims in the world – millions in the US alone – yet large numbers of uninformed Americans still think every Muslim is an extremist, American-hating, suicide bomber. The media eventually began covering these intolerant remarks, but only after Obama's race was brought into the picture. Evidently, shouted derogatory comments about homosexuals, Muslims, and other minorities remains perfectly acceptable and not newsworthy. However, this all turns around when Obama's African-American ethnicity becomes the main topic. Suddenly, “race” becomes the prominent issue, while numerous other minorities are completely denied media exposure.
Similar insufficient media coverage occurred in the 2000 Election. Back then, McCain, in describing his guards at a Vietnamese war camp, said, “I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.” The word “gook” is derogatory U.S. Military term for people of Eastern-Asian decent, specifically Koreans and Vietnamese. In response to the minimal criticism he received, McCain rebutted by saying, “I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends.” By this logic, if his captors were of African descent, then the use of the N-word would be perfectly acceptable. It is unthinkable that America can become enraged with a sarcastic comment from Don Imus, yet John McCain can use hate-filled epithets against over 13 million Americans and the subject remains untouched. America has a long history of racism against Asians, dating back to our first few decades as a nation. The unequal payment of Asians' work on the Transcontinental Railroad, the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, and the Chinese Exclusion Act are all prime examples of our sad history. Even worse was McCain's failed attempt at justifying his comments rather than simply apologizing, as he should have done. While McCain truly has endured pain and torture for our country, his grouping of large populaces remains unacceptable.
However, the largest populous of people grouped together ignorantly in the recent election, were women. In mid-summer of 2008, nearly 18 million Hillary Clinton supporters seemed up for grabs to the two main presidential candidates. With many voters displeased, John McCain could have made many intelligent, strategic moves at this point, but what he did can only be described as awful, out-of-touch, and sexist: he picked Sarah Palin. At first this new-comer from Alaska seemed like a VP-pick from heaven: she reassured the fundamentalist Republican base, she was a “lively” speech-giver, and she had executive experience. However, it soon became painfully obvious that John McCain picked Sarah Palin for one reason: she was a woman. Despite being the political-opposite of Hillary Clinton, despite views that contradict the majority of women in America, and despite being too much a “maverick” to answer simple questions, her gender was more important to the McCain campaign then her quality as a politician. This move was not only completely sexist – assuming that women everywhere would vote for another woman, solely based on her gender – but it was imbecilic: to say that Hillary Clinton's 18 million voters were all women – who voted for Senator Clinton's gender – was completely offensive and not correct. All different ethnicities, religions, races, and sexual orientations make up the women of America; grouping them together and acting as if they all have the same political views demonstrates challenges that we still face as a nation.
LGBT Equality Denied In California
On the 10th of October, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, allowing gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgendered couples to have the same state given marital benefits as heterosexual couples. Despite the controversial nature of homosexual rights, Connecticut is the second state this year to legalize same-sex marriage, and the third state in total, behind California and Massachusetts. While this much-needed amendment will truly benefit Connecticut in many ways, questions still remain unanswered. Is this permanent or will the fallacious right-wing yet again defy the first amendment? What does this mean for Connecticut residents? How will this monumental amelioration affect the rest of the nation?
Second only to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) community, the small, middle-class business owners of Connecticut will benefit the most. Along with the actual wedding comes receptions, services, cakes, food, performers, photographers, honeymoons, hotels, and many more related services. Connecticut will be receiving the monetary stimulus that it may need, especially in these hard economic times. In California, the most recent state besides Connecticut to legalize same-sex marriage, an economic boom was predicted by analysts. They predicted that $684 million would be spent on marriage services, such as receptions, photographers, and cakes, $64 million would be generated from tax revenue, and $9 million dollars would be gained from marriage licenses. Granted, California is a much larger state than Connecticut with more LGBT residents, but the fact still stands that Connecticut's scenery and natural beauty is superior to the other states with same-sex marriage.
If you are a Connecticut resident, it is doubtful that you will notice many changes, yet the positive effects from same-sex marriage legalization will still be bountiful. If you are LGBT then you now have statewide rights to become legally married to a person of the same gender. The same rights as heterosexual couples will also apply to you and your partner of choice. The allure of gay marriage and scenic Connecticut will entice much needed tourism. Whether it would be the coastline in summer, the famous orange, erubescent, auburn trees in autumn, the winter wonderland of Hubbard Park in the winter, or the daffodils of the spring, Connecticut is a picturesque location for couples to wed. This influx of tourists into Connecticut only denotes positive results for our fine little state. Millions of dollars in tax revenue and marriage licenses will be generated, as well as the creation of hundreds of new jobs.
Nonetheless, the homophobic conservative fundamentalists will stop at nothing to push their own agenda on every single American. Do not let openly homophobic groups with bright names such as “Focus on the Family” or “Concerned Women for America” fool you: they are more interested in pushing their own questionable agenda then letting the American people decide what is right for themselves. Despite these groups failing to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, they have moved on to California in an attempt to beguile the residents into limiting peoples' rights by supporting their agenda, known in California as “Proposition 8”. Proposition 8 would not only take away the few rights that honest, hardworking, LGBT Americans have, but it would completely annihilate the economic stimulus that Californians deserve. Regardless of California, the same dark fate could possibly happen to Connecticut if we allow religion to control our secular nation.
One of the finest features of the same-sex marriage laws in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are the freedom that every single citizen is allowed to have within the law. Specifically, no citizen will ever be forced to be married in a heterosexual or same-sex marriage. Those who have problems with homosexuality, whether it be for religious or personal reasons, will not be forced to be involved or supportive in any way with homosexuality and those who identify as LGBT may be married as they wish. With the laws the way that they are, everyone wins. Yet, in an effort to go against the First Amendment, the Religious Right feels that their own opinions and ideals are more substantial than others'. We can only hope that the voters can see through their facade in November.
Second only to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) community, the small, middle-class business owners of Connecticut will benefit the most. Along with the actual wedding comes receptions, services, cakes, food, performers, photographers, honeymoons, hotels, and many more related services. Connecticut will be receiving the monetary stimulus that it may need, especially in these hard economic times. In California, the most recent state besides Connecticut to legalize same-sex marriage, an economic boom was predicted by analysts. They predicted that $684 million would be spent on marriage services, such as receptions, photographers, and cakes, $64 million would be generated from tax revenue, and $9 million dollars would be gained from marriage licenses. Granted, California is a much larger state than Connecticut with more LGBT residents, but the fact still stands that Connecticut's scenery and natural beauty is superior to the other states with same-sex marriage.
If you are a Connecticut resident, it is doubtful that you will notice many changes, yet the positive effects from same-sex marriage legalization will still be bountiful. If you are LGBT then you now have statewide rights to become legally married to a person of the same gender. The same rights as heterosexual couples will also apply to you and your partner of choice. The allure of gay marriage and scenic Connecticut will entice much needed tourism. Whether it would be the coastline in summer, the famous orange, erubescent, auburn trees in autumn, the winter wonderland of Hubbard Park in the winter, or the daffodils of the spring, Connecticut is a picturesque location for couples to wed. This influx of tourists into Connecticut only denotes positive results for our fine little state. Millions of dollars in tax revenue and marriage licenses will be generated, as well as the creation of hundreds of new jobs.
Nonetheless, the homophobic conservative fundamentalists will stop at nothing to push their own agenda on every single American. Do not let openly homophobic groups with bright names such as “Focus on the Family” or “Concerned Women for America” fool you: they are more interested in pushing their own questionable agenda then letting the American people decide what is right for themselves. Despite these groups failing to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, they have moved on to California in an attempt to beguile the residents into limiting peoples' rights by supporting their agenda, known in California as “Proposition 8”. Proposition 8 would not only take away the few rights that honest, hardworking, LGBT Americans have, but it would completely annihilate the economic stimulus that Californians deserve. Regardless of California, the same dark fate could possibly happen to Connecticut if we allow religion to control our secular nation.
One of the finest features of the same-sex marriage laws in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are the freedom that every single citizen is allowed to have within the law. Specifically, no citizen will ever be forced to be married in a heterosexual or same-sex marriage. Those who have problems with homosexuality, whether it be for religious or personal reasons, will not be forced to be involved or supportive in any way with homosexuality and those who identify as LGBT may be married as they wish. With the laws the way that they are, everyone wins. Yet, in an effort to go against the First Amendment, the Religious Right feels that their own opinions and ideals are more substantial than others'. We can only hope that the voters can see through their facade in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
